Thanks for that! I can't remember the last time Yuna missed that. That edge control is why we need to bring figures back! Yuna gets pretty good height and distance I am amazed by how effortless she makes it look.

Hmm agree. Almost forgotten Maria Butyrskaya. She is in my memory the only Russian who consistently performs a true Lutz and Flip without edge errors although her nerves often gets the better of her especially on that flip! Even the great Slutskaya had a mild flutz like her old rival Kwan. It is scary that so few of the current female skaters have complete jumps without edge errors - only Yuna, Caro and Tuktamysheva comes to mind and perhaps SoYoun Park, Polina Edmunds. Flutzers = Yulia Lip, Zijun Li, Asada, Kanako Murakami, Wagner; Lippers = A Pogo, Gold, Radionova. When it comes to missing a triple jump, the triple loop seems to be the one lacking in the arsenal (Marchei, Yuna) although in my memory, Russian ladies tend to be great at those big triple loops e.g. Butyrskaya, Slutskaya (love the 3 turn entrance), Radionova. After Caro retires, I wonder which skater (both male or female) will be able to perform that triple loop after the inside 3 turns - none I can think of.

So, what's your verdict? Is having improper lutz better than having no lutz?

Because it seems that this is what the current scoring system says (correct me if I'm wrong).

Yes. And although it wasn't codified in the same way, many judges may have operated in the same belief under 6.0 scoring -- especially in the post-figures era when doing as many triples as possible, of all varieties if possible, was highly rewarded.

Now, what do we think. Should a proper double lutz be worth as much or more as a triple flutz?

With the recent changes of deductions on wrong edges, how can Mao or Kanako (or other chronic flutzers/lippers) 'evade' or 'outsmart' those calls? any jump layout ideas?

Just being worried for them....

With Mao it is not really an issue, her flutz is one of the most obvious ones out there but she can either keep doing it and take the hit or just leave it out of her programs. In which case she still has 7 triples. Other flutzers lose out more but we have an OGM with an obvious flutz. Just do what she did and limit it to one in the LP, again not a real issue unless your other triples are lacking as well.

With Mao it is not really an issue, her flutz is one of the most obvious ones out there but she can either keep doing it and take the hit or just leave it out of her programs. In which case she still has 7 triples. Other flutzers lose out more but we have an OGM with an obvious flutz. Just do what she did and limit it to one in the LP, again not a real issue unless your other triples are lacking as well.

this. who cares about the flutz.. you can still win an olympic gold medal even if you flutz..

this. who cares about the flutz.. you can still win an olympic gold medal even if you flutz..

Not to deny that our current OGM won through criminally bad judging, but out of our last 5 OGMs, 60% flutz and the other 40% failed to do a 3Loop in the LP. And 50% of that 40% has an undeniable lip (sorry Shizuka). And the 2002 OGM winner was also a fraud, albeit one of a lesser order.

Now, what do we think. Should a proper double lutz be worth as much or more as a triple flutz?

.
Moving double jumps values up is probably not good for the sport IMO

Triple Lutz is worth 6.0pts and a double Lutz 2.1pts. I hope no one thinks a flutz is worth nearly a 4pt deduction! Conversely a 2Lz really shouldn't be worth any more. So do we really want to penalize a flutz to that degree? -4pts!!! Before GOE!!! A fall should be focused on and punished more IMO. At least the crowd can see a fall or bad step out. I think the rule should be along the lines of if replay is needed to penalize any element it the deduction should be capped at how much can be reduced. Obviously this would be lesser than any deduction spotted with the naked eye. Minor flutzes or Lips that need replay to be identified should never recieve more than a 1pt deduction IMO ...maybe -2 if it is severe. If it is really disruptive enough to warrant a -2 or -3 shouldn't it be identified with the naked eye?

The judges must be allowed to "judge" at some point. Lets face it...some flutz are worse than others. Let the judges sort it out. It is their job after all.

Last edited by Sam-Skwantch; 05-15-2014 at 10:14 AM.
Reason: I combined two posts and had to edit out extra sentences...sorry

The judges must be allowed to "judge" at some point. Lets face it...some flutz are worse than others. Let the judges sort it out. It is their job after all.

I think the reason why many people get up in arms over wrong-edge take-offs is this. The take-off edge is part of the definition of the element. Some say it is the whole definition. So if you do not take off from the proper edge, the technical specialist cannot call "Lutz" at all. 0 credit for an unlisted jump. Or at best call it a flip and take your chances with Zayak penalties. If you simply cannot do this element, then you must leave it out.

This is a minority view, but it kind of nags at the back of our minds when we argue for leniency. -- or rather when we argue that there is more to the Lutz jump than just the take-off edge.

A triple flutz is the wrong version of a listed jump but it is still a triple jump that is harder than a loop. It should be penalized more than it was this last quad but it should still be worth something, much like a fall on a fully rotated 4T should be worth more than a 1T. As for applying Zayak rules, what if you take off on a flattish edge? If a close call makes a 6 point difference then that gives the tech panel too much power.